Replies

In this statement, Jorgenson seems to say that one of the reasons for the price drop at the producer level was the elimination of the tax on wages paid to workers. So, naturally if the business is going to realize this benefit it must reduce the workers gross pay be the amount that is currently being paid in the form of income and payroll taxes.

Ummm 12% from SS, and 2(?)% for medicare are not part of a workers gross salary... But you know what if I only take home 60% of my salary (lets say its 50,000) or 30,000... and someone comes along and says well drop your salay to 40,000$ but youll take home 35,000$ am I the worker really suffering?

Ummm 12% from SS, and 2(?)% for medicare are not part of a workers gross salary...

Sorry, the correct number is 6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare that are NOT part of your gross salary. THis is the employee match. There is an identical amount that is deducted from your gross. But you know what if I only take home 60% of my salary (lets say its 50,000) or 30,000... and someone comes along and says well drop your salay to 40,000$ but youll take home 35,000$ am I the worker really suffering?

I guess it depends what happens to the prices of goods, and the amount of taxes that you are charged on them, when your income makes that transition. If your take-home went from $30,000 to $35,000 and prices+taxes are 20% higher, then you've lost. If prices+taxes went up only 10% or stayed the same, then you've won.

But your hypothetical is not what the calculations are based on. In your example, your salary will drop to the $30,000 you are taking home now. I am not saying they have any way to make that salary reduction happen, but they planned on it happening to make the FairTax promise of "retail prices staying about the same" possible.